Discussion Title: The earth will not be irreparable in 12 years from climate change

1. In 12 years the earth will not have suffered irreparable damage from climate change.
1.1. Pro: Planetary life has survived far more [drastic changes](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_periods_and_events_in_climate_history) than some pollution or a few celsius temperature changes over its history.
1.1.1. Con: While the planet and some life forms on it may be capable of withstanding drastic changes that are much worse than current climate change predictions, we have to consider that climate related hardships may increase the likelihood of [war](https://qz.com/1708015/bill-gates-on-the-risk-of-war-from-climate-change/) which \(if it includes nuclear weapons\) does in fact threaten all human life on earth.
1.1.2. Pro: The planet has survived meteor impacts, ice ages lasting literally [300 million years](https://www.statista.com/statistics/1048938/length-all-ice-ages/), losing millions of species forever to time. To claim that a planet that has underwent such punishment would soon be irreparably damaged in a mere 12 years is dangerous exaggeration if not an outright lie.
1.1.2.1. Pro: Arguing and extending false ideas about the planets ecological capabilities may lead to mistrust and a lack of respect from the public if taken too far.
1.2. Pro: The climate fear movement is about authoritarian power more than about helping the planet, proven by many of their words and actions.
1.2.1. Con: Activists are [inreasingly suggesting](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4235274/) behavioral changes in power, based on evidence that these behaviors are causing damage that could irreparably harm the planet in future.
1.2.2. Pro: The [carbon footprint](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/datablog/2009/sep/02/carbon-emissions-per-person-capita) of agricultural societies such as in India and Africa is portrayed as better because it helps with climate change, which suggests that we should all be agricultural in development status. This is curiously in line with what we are hearing from an infamous killer called [Ted Kaczynski](https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Unabomber#Ideology) who has promoted a view that human life is inevitably leading to self-destruction and misery unless we all regress to a more agricultural level of technology on a global level.
1.2.3. Pro: The [Georgia Guidestones](https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Georgia_Guidestones#Inscriptions) contain an inscription that the ideal human population for the planet is 500 million. That is an indication that a hidden goal of wealthy leaders is to reduce the planet's population, proving that power must be their goal. Where such calls used to be hidden, they now come to the surface in the [media](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-11-05/scientists-call-for-population-control-in-mass-climate-alarm) openly.
1.2.4. Con: The green movement does not have an authoritarian character because hierarchically it is a grassroots movement aiming to enact change through democratic means.
1.2.4.1. Con: Every local government that puts a green tax on an individual's car emissions is a hierarchy and this law is something they are forced to follow, no different from any other law. Claiming that there is no hierarchy is deceptive because there are many [hierarchies](https://www.belfercenter.org/sites/default/files/legacy/files/Keohane_Victor_Final_2.pdf) under the umbrella term of the 'green movement'.
1.2.4.2. Con: Authority does not necessarily need a hierarchy. If five people democratically decide that you do not get to eat meat, does it make it any less authoratative? This is commonly known as the [tyranny of the masses](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority).
1.2.4.3. Con: No hierarchy implies no leaders, yet there are undisputed leader-type public figures peddled to the world: [Greta Thunberg](https://time.com/person-of-the-year-2019-greta-thunberg/) is just the most prominent recent addition.
1.2.4.4. Con: Taxes on fuel, electricity, water and meat [affect the most disadvantaged](https://www.camecon.com/blog/taxing-food-and-fuel-impacts-on-poorer-households/), poor people of society.
1.2.4.5. Pro: The existence of NGOs such as the [Green Cross](https://www.gcint.org/) indicate that the green movement is about helping rather than authoriarian power.
1.2.5. Con: The green movement suggests behavior changes based on facts and evidence and therefore it cannot be considered to be driven by authoritarian power motives.
1.2.6. Pro: Green advocates have a curious propensity to suggest demeaning, [invasive changes](https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-49499521) to personal behavior and lifestyle that go beyond what a benevolent person would ask another human being to do.
1.2.6.1. Pro: The climate fear advocates ask us to have [less kids](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/jul/12/want-to-fight-climate-change-have-fewer-children) "for the climate". However, at the same time we are told that we need to [allow for more immigration because of declining birthrates](https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/can-immigration-save-the-us-from-its-birthrate-crisis/2019/01/15/2c546262-1907-11e9-8813-cb9dec761e73_story.html). This line of reasoning shows that there are hidden, demeaning, authoritarian power motives at play.
1.2.6.2. Pro: EU study suggests that we should use "[shower alarms](https://ec.europa.eu/environment/integration/research/newsalert/pdf/213na3_en.pdf)" to warn us when we use too much water that we already pay for.
1.2.6.3. Pro: Scientists are now telling us to eat [bugs and maggots](https://www.sciencefocus.com/news/eating-insects-could-help-us-save-the-planet/) to help save the planet.
1.2.6.3.1. Pro: [Cricket farming](https://sciencenordic.com/agriculture--fisheries-climate-climate-solutions/how-much-more-environmentally-friendly-is-it-to-eat-insects/1445691) uses 75% less carbon dioxide and consumes 50% less water than chicken farms.
1.2.6.3.2. Pro: Per 100g edible product, beef requires an estimated 2000 times more [water](https://naakbar.com/blogs/articles/why-you-should-eat-insect-cricket-versus-beef) to produce than cricket protein.
1.2.7. Con: The motives some people have for saying something are not relevant to whether it is true or false.
1.2.8. Pro: Climate fear leaders are lobbying for [tax increases](https://www.cnbc.com/2019/10/10/carbon-tax-most-powerful-way-to-combat-climate-change-imf.html) that go directly against the will of the population, as evidenced by the sudden uprising of the [yellow vests movement](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_vests_movement). Increase in fuel cost is one of the most direct ways to hurt working people's daily lives, yet it's their first lever to pull.
1.2.8.1. Con: As the source in the parent claim indicates, the Yellow Vests only complained of the individual liability component, not carbon taxes themselves.
1.2.8.2. Con: Carbon taxes are introduced to [discourage](https://www.cnbc.com/2019/10/10/carbon-tax-most-powerful-way-to-combat-climate-change-imf.html) people from using individual transport and shift to public ones, which cause less pollution. People can take trams or buses to work daily, pr carpool to prevent paying these taxes.
1.2.8.2.1. Con: Carbon taxes are the wrong lever to use, causing people to make sacrifices in their personal finances and lives to support distant goals that are on the paygrade of governments. Meanwhile if governments did their jobs, cars would already be running on hydrogen and no personal sacrifices would be necessary.
1.3. Con: [Thousands of scientists](https://theconversation.com/11-000-scientists-warn-climate-change-isnt-just-about-temperature-126261) are warning of the effects of climate change, and that we are approaching a point of no return. It is unlikely that they are all wrong.
1.3.1. Con: There was also a [broad scientific consensus](https://www.eggnutritioncenter.org/articles/eggs-heart-disease-new-study-line-broader-science/) on eggs being bad for you. The scientific community is often wrong for many decades and then when new information comes in, they have to sheepishly change their consensus. An appeal to authority is therefore not good enough.
1.3.2. Pro: The world’s leading climate scientists have [warned](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/oct/08/global-warming-must-not-exceed-15c-warns-landmark-un-report) there is only 12 years for global warming to be kept to a maximum of 1.5 degree Celsius, beyond which even half a degree will significantly worsen the risks of drought, floods, extreme heat and poverty for hundreds of millions of people.
1.3.2.1. Pro: Staying at, or below 1.5°C requires reducing global greenhouse gas emissions by [45%](https://www.vox.com/2018/10/8/17948832/climate-change-global-warming-un-ipcc-report) \(as it relates to the timeframe between 2010 to 2030\) and ultimately requires reaching net zero emissions globally by 2050 to remain below 1.5°C. These ambitious global changes would also help reduce the sea level rise by 0.1m \(100cm\). Furthermore the expectation is that extreme weather patterns would occur less frequently and living conditions for humans would be better.
1.3.3. Con: Around [3% of climate scientists](https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/) do not believe that man-made climate change is happening.
1.3.3.1. Con: Many scientists are funded by [corporations](https://www.climaterealityproject.org/blog/climate-denial-machine-how-fossil-fuel-industry-blocks-climate-action) whose interests align with climate change denial.
1.4. Con: Many countries are facing existential threats because of climate change. It is likely that they will reach a point of no return in 12 years.
1.4.1. Pro: Climate change has caused [global sea levels](https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/global-warming/big-thaw/) - and their associated complications - to rise at their fastest rate for the past two to three thousand years.
1.4.1.1. Con: Sea levels have been rising and falling for the past [2,500 years](https://phys.org/news/2010-01-sea-falling-years.html).
1.4.1.1.1. Con: Whilst the earth does see natural patterns of global warming, CO2 and other greenhouse gas levels since 1750 have been rising at an unprecedented rate, deviating from the natural cycle which would have expected them to [decrease](http://ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/natural-cycle).
1.4.1.2. Pro: Rising sea levels will make Maldives [uninhabitable by 2030](https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-5656793/Rising-sea-levels-make-low-lying-atoll-islands-uninhabitable-2030.html).
1.4.1.2.1. Pro: The Maldives government is considering to set aside funds to [purchase land](https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/news-blog/maldives-drowning-carbon-neutral-by-2009-03-16/) from another country to relocate its populace.
1.4.1.3. Pro: The [Republic of Kiribati](https://www.sciencealert.com/what-happens-when-a-country-drowns) has declared that the effects of climate change are threatening its existence. Global warming, the effects of rising sea levels accompanied by regular flooding, dying corals and intensified natural hazards are putting a strain on its capacity to function as a nation.
1.4.1.4. Pro: Flooding in [Bangladesh](https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019/07/worst-floods-years-submerge-bangladesh-villages-190719083053518.html) is becoming more disastrous.
1.4.2. Pro: The temperature increase associated with climate change is already [making droughts worse](https://www.carbonbrief.org/guest-post-climate-change-is-already-making-droughts-worse) in a variety of diverse locations across the globe.
1.4.3. Con: As humans our goal should not be the preservation of an arbitrary value such as sea level, but to overcome our reliance on nature to begin with. Initiatives taken by many countries, which are simple and quick, can easily revert supposedly catastrophic consequences from climate change.
1.4.3.1. Pro: Nations under the sea level, like [Denmark](https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/06/15/world/europe/climate-change-rotterdam.html), have invented new dam systems and technologies to combat their reliance on nature.
1.4.3.2. Pro: China is [building land](https://www.newsweek.com/china-south-china-sea-islands-build-military-territory-expand-575161) in the middle of the South China Sea, creating new land within weeks.
1.4.3.2.1. Pro: The U.S. [estimates](https://www.newsweek.com/china-south-china-sea-islands-build-military-territory-expand-575161) that China has added 3,200 acres of land on seven features \(which includes rocky outcrops and reefs\) over the past three years in the South China Sea.
1.4.3.3. Pro: [Desalination plants](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desalination) can, in theory, create endless amounts of fresh water from salt water, making living in a hot climate not a problem.
1.4.3.3.1. Con: Desalination plants produce [more waste brine](https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/2019/01/desalination-plants-produce-twice-as-much-waste-brine-as-thought/) than experts expected, thus doing less to combat waste.
1.4.3.3.1.1. Pro: A copious amount of fossil fuels are often used to power desalination plants, resulting in a significant amount of [emissions](https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/2019/01/desalination-plants-produce-twice-as-much-waste-brine-as-thought/).
1.4.3.3.1.2. Pro: Chemicals like copper and chlorine are added to the seawater at various stages in the [desalination process](https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/2019/01/desalination-plants-produce-twice-as-much-waste-brine-as-thought/) which affects marine life and makes the water toxic.
1.4.4. Con: Climate change is not necessarily human made and therefore also not human preventable by moderating ourselves in some way. [Doggerland](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doggerland) was a huge area of land that simply disappeared due to a change in climate during the ice ages. Maybe it is a natural part of nature that some land rises and some land falls.
1.4.4.1. Con: It is estimated that climate change had an influence on [drought patterns](https://www.carbonbrief.org/climate-change-has-influenced-global-drought-risk-for-more-than-a-century) as far back as 1900. This date coincides with the end of the industrial revolution, which is largely thought to be the kick-started for [modern global warming](https://theconversation.com/the-industrial-revolution-kick-started-global-warming-much-earlier-than-we-realised-64301).
1.4.4.2. Pro: -> See 1.4.1.1.
1.4.4.3. Con: Since [1850](https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-why-scientists-think-100-of-global-warming-is-due-to-humans), almost all the long-term warming can be explained by greenhouse gas emissions and other human activities.
1.5. Pro: All we have to do is wait and the argument will be won by time itself. As a way to track progress towards disproving the 12 year number, we can simply find the earliest mention of it and start counting down. Here is an [article from January 2019](https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/426353-ocasio-cortez-the-world-will-end-in-12-years-if-we-dont-address) claiming it for the first time.
1.6. Con: It's impossible to know for sure what will happen, it's better to be safe and [exaggerate or even lie to the world](https://www.brookings.edu/research/the-challenging-politics-of-climate-change/) about the exact consequences. Therefore hyping up fear about the climate beyond reason is the only way to get anything done on a political level.
1.6.1. Pro: If climate activists are correct, the consequences could harm many lives and human survival as a species. If people act on the climate change fear and suggestions, but the threat is less than predicted, people are guaranteed to be safe from the climate consequences predicted.
1.6.1.1. Pro: In a similar logic to [Pascal's wager](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_wager), if we cannot know for certain which option is true, then we should choose to believe the option that could cause infinite loss \(i.e. climate disasters and end of humanity\) over the option causing finite loss \(behaviour change/ economic costs to climate actions\).
1.6.1.2. Con: This logic is faulty because people who want to gain power will [invent dire scenarios/enemies](https://qz.com/1183992/why-europe-was-overrun-by-witch-hunts-in-early-modern-history/) that are not real in order to live out their power fantasies.
1.6.1.2.1. Con: Climate change claims are [thoroughly](https://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/listeningpost/2018/01/persistence-climate-scepticism-media-180127102510571.html) examined by scientists, [media](https://www.ecosystemmarketplace.com/articles/14522/), politicians etc. It would be very hard for someone to invent a disaster and convince these groups to take it seriously, given the historical reluctance to believe true threats \(e.g. climate change, dangers of smoking etc.\)
1.6.2. Con: Exaggerating and lying about climate change may make political powers waste resources on this issue to the detriment of, for example, health service, policing and national security funding.
1.6.3. Con: Climate change and veganism are topics people hate hearing about, discovering lies and holes in these narratives increases people's conviction to disprove climate change.
1.6.4. Pro: Exaggeration about climate change consequences help attract political attention to the issue, and it makes it more likely to divert resources to fight this cause.
1.6.4.1. Pro: In the [United States](https://www.brookings.edu/research/the-challenging-politics-of-climate-change/), thanks to widespread exaggeration, the amount of greenhouse gas emissions has been held steady since 1990, even though its economy and population has grown overtime.
1.6.5. Pro: Given that a majority of the population about the world is [not "very concerned"](https://www.brookings.edu/research/the-challenging-politics-of-climate-change/) about climate change, such exaggeration is necessary to gain their support for efforts to sustain the environment.
1.6.5.1. Pro: Although 2017 was a year of 16 different billion-dollar natural disasters, the percentage of voters who were “very concerned” about climate change has stayed within [40%](https://www.brookings.edu/research/the-challenging-politics-of-climate-change/).
1.6.6. Con: Exaggerating or lying about the consequences of climate change can deter people from supporting the cause.
1.7. Pro: Humans are a resilient species and will develop new technologies to solve climate related issues just in time. If we look back historically, anti pollution laws only happened when health issues were not possible to ignore anymore.
1.7.1. Pro: There are many [plans for technical adaptation](https://unfccc.int/resource/docs/publications/tech_for_adaptation_06.pdf) already in development that will help humans to mitigate the effects of climate change on the species.
1.7.2. Con: Waiting for future technological solutions [reduces societal willingness](https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-09-26/future-technology-will-solve-climate-change-don-t-believe-it) to make necessary changes immediately. Over the past decades, this attitude of blindly trusting in a scientific breakthrough that may never come could defer significant needed benefits in the fight against climate change and lead to bad effects that we would never experience had we acted immediately.
1.7.3. Con: Technical solutions may be hindered by hostile circumstances such as war, famine, draught and many others that may occur as a result of climate change.
1.7.3.1. Con: Research is often much faster during war times and it [suggests](https://science.howstuffworks.com/war-drive-technological-advancement.htm) that it will be faster during times of great need, much like the common saying suggests that [necessity is the mother of invention](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necessity_is_the_mother_of_invention).
1.7.3.2. Pro: A market driven economy may ultimately reject or slow down good technological solutions for financial reasons. This is apparent if we look at some green technologies and how their adoption has been [opposed by vested interests](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/oct/10/vested-interests-public-against-climate-science-fossil-fuel-lobby) profiting from fossil fuels.
1.7.3.2.1. Pro: Such slowdowns in adoption may one day be fatal for the planet, for example protection against solar radiation damage is financially not viable but the [last big solar event](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_storm_of_1859) which happened before the electronic age could crash the global economy.
1.7.3.2.2. Con: Vested interests develop naturally in any area where money can be made, which includes the green tech space where [Al Gore](https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/decision2012/al-gore-has-thrived-as-green-tech-investor/2012/10/10/1dfaa5b0-0b11-11e2-bd1a-b868e65d57eb_story.html) has made money by promoting and investing into green tech.
1.7.3.3. Pro: Research and development does not continue as normal in societies struggling to cope with extreme weather, food shortages, mass emigrations, etc. This [link](http://www.fao.org/3/a-i6583e.pdf) suggests that "Intensified competition for \[...\] resources could lead to their overexploitation and unsustainable use, \[...\] creating a destructive loop whereby resource degradation leads to ever increasing competition for the remaining available resources \[...\]."
1.7.3.3.1. Pro: If specialist skilled emigration exceeds immigration, then any border restrictions will affect advances in [research and innovation](https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/10/the-unexpected-factor-holding-back-research-and-innovation).
1.7.3.3.2. Pro: During food shortages and the like, priority is likely to be given to [survival](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/jan/21/venezuela-looting-violence-food-shortages) over innovation and development.
1.7.4. Pro: China is [capable of](https://i.imgur.com/SeBFxYT.png) rapidly expanding islands in the sea, despite supposedly rising sea levels.
1.7.4.1. Con: Building artificial islands in spite of rising sea levels is a short term 'band aid' which cannot save Chinese people from food shortages, drought or natural disasters as climate change impacts continually worsen.
1.7.4.2. Pro: -> See 1.4.3.2.
1.7.5. Pro: According to [National Geographic](https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/global-warming/sea-level-rise/), by 2100, the sea can be expected to rise between 10 and 30 inches \(26 to 77 centimeters\). Logically we can easily understand that a mere meter of wall or dam can be easily built to combat such a small rise, and countries have dams that do just that on a national level.
1.7.5.1. Pro: Countries like [Denmark](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flood_control_in_the_Netherlands) have started the construction of dams to combat rising sea levels on a [national level](https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/06/15/world/europe/climate-change-rotterdam.html).
1.7.6. Con: Technologies may not be enough to save us from the worst outcomes of climate change.
1.7.6.1. Pro: Many experts believe that [even with](https://www.independent.co.uk/environment/future-technology-cannot-rescue-mankind-climate-change-global-warming-a8187806.html) technological advancement, the impact will be limited and not enough to save the Earth.
1.7.6.2. Con: It is quite literally an undisputable fact that a technology that allows us to migrate to a different planet would save us from climate change.
1.7.6.2.1. Con: Being required to move to a different planet would necessarily mean that technology had not managed to save the planet from an irreparable fate as is the initial claim, instead only some of its human inhabitants.
1.7.6.2.2. Con: [Leading astronomers](https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/2019-nobel-prize-physics-chemistry-climate-change-global-warming-a9237346.html) have warned against choosing to leave the planet rather than fix the climate on our own.
1.7.6.2.3. Pro: In 2017, [Stephen Hawking](https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/stephen-hawking-just-moved-up-humanitys-deadline-for-escaping-earth-a7722181.html) gave humanity a deadline of 1000 years to escape the Earth's demise due to climate change.
1.7.6.3. Pro: It is not clear how technology can help us combat [temperatures that are too warm for humans.](http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2017/07/climate-change-earth-too-hot-for-humans.html)
1.7.6.3.1. Con: Humans can develop biodomes or other living facilities that work almost completely isolated underground, in the sky or underwater. [Vertical farming](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vertical_farming) is one indication that this will be possible.
1.7.6.3.2. Con: [Suits](https://gizmodo.com/four-technologies-that-could-let-humans-survive-environ-1721731733) similar to those astronauts wear could be invented to allow us to survive in extreme heat.
1.7.6.4. Pro: Even if these technologies are invented, the poorest people, who will [suffer the most](https://www.cnbc.com/2018/11/26/climate-change-will-hurt-poor-people-the-most-federal-report.html) from climate change, may not be able to afford them.
1.7.7. Pro: [Climate engineering](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_engineering) technology is being developed which could reverse global warming.
1.7.7.1. Pro: [Carbon capture technologies](https://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2019/09/27/carbon-capture-technology/) are being developed to reduce our harmful carbon emissions.